| 1 |
On 12/27/12 12:52, Matthias Hanft wrote: |
| 2 |
> Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> My first -m state rule is, |
| 5 |
>> iptables -A INPUT -p ALL -m state \ |
| 6 |
>> --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That was mine, too (you can omit -p in this case, can't you?). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yeah, it just makes the indentation line up in my case. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> And if what you say is true, I'd be in deep shit if it reset to, |
| 15 |
>> iptables -A INPUT -p ALL -m state -j ACCEPT |
| 16 |
>> without a warning. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It *was* resetted here. I just noticed it reading this discussion. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Don't exactly know what the "stateless" rule did (perhaps just |
| 21 |
> nothing?), but since I didn't notice it for a pretty long time, |
| 22 |
> it can't have been all to bad?! At least, it didn't crash the |
| 23 |
> whole system :-) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> But I would have appreciated at least an update notice, too! |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I confirmed and opened a bug: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=448906 |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Thanks again to Graham for pointing this out. |
Archives